As some of the country’s senior lawyers and researchers in a range of disciplines (law, economics, Tiriti o Waitangi, public policy, environment), including a former Prime Minister and two New Zealanders of the Year, we cannot stand by as the Regulatory Standards Bill is rushed through a parliamentary select committee next week.
Each of us has written extensively and spoken out against this Bill from our respective areas of expertise. Many of us have done so for the three previous iterations of this Bill when it was promoted unsuccessfully by the Act Party and the Business Round Roundtable (later, the New Zealand Institute).
On each of those occasions Parliament has rejected the Bill as philosophically and legally unsound, profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
This time the Act Party has sought to bypass rigorous parliamentary scrutiny by securing commitments from the National and New Zealand First parties to legislate the Bill into law. There was an opportunity for public submissions on the proposal late last year, where it secured the support of only 0.33% of the over 23,000 New Zealanders who expressed their views on the consultation document. It is evident that the advice in virtually all the submissions was ignored by the government.
The Bill could have profound constitutional consequences. It establishes a set of principles as a benchmark for good legislation/regulation, many of which are highly questionable and designed to establish a presumption in favour of a libertarian view of the role of the state – one that ceased to have any currency globally more than a century ago. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been excluded altogether. The power vested in the Minister for Regulation and a ministerial-appointed board is not subject to the normal accountabilities of Crown entities, conferring significant yet largely unaccountable authority on the executive.
Dr Jim Salinger, 2024 New Zealander of the Year, further notes the chilling effect the Bill will have on any future policy on climate change and adaptation following the almost $4 billion cost of the 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, the highest in our history.
While there is a select committee review of the Bill, it is truncated and circumscribed. The Coalition government has decided to submit the Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee rather than the Justice Committee, limiting the time to hear many tens of thousands of oral submissions to just 30 hours – at most 360 submissions – with 5 minutes per submitter, and truncating the period for those hearings and the committee’s report, further exposes the hypocrisy that this Bill is about good governance, better laws, improved regulation, greater transparency and enhanced governmental accountability. We are gravely concerned that the National Party and New Zealand First appear to be complicit in this undemocratic process.
We have each thought long and hard about whether to say we want to challenge this Bill before the select committee, lest it give some credibility to a process that is devoid of legitimacy. Some of us, such as Professor Dame Anne Salmond, 2013 New Zealander of the Year, and Professor Andrew Geddis, made written submissions, but feel there is no point in participating such a harmful process.
Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston, Dr Geoffrey Bertram, Dr Bill Rosenberg and Dr Max Harris have indicated they want to address the committee to reinforce their submissions. In Professor Boston’s view: “The current Bill is destined to have a very short and ignominious life as an Act of Parliament: it enjoys virtually no public support; it lacks cross-party backing; it is opposed by the very Ministry that will be responsible for its implementation; and it endorses principles that have been found wanting by multiple generations of people throughout the world”.
In similar vein, long-standing academic critic of the Bill Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey feels a responsibility “to speak truth to power” – in this case the abuse of proper process and the Act Party’s ongoing contempt for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
For a time it appeared the Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Professor of Law at Te Herenga Waka/ Victoria University of Wellington, author of numerous books on parliamentary constitutinalism, and staunch critic of the Bill, was originally not invited to address the select committee, despite saying but he wanted to be heard. He was subsequently offered an opportunity.
All of us appeal to the National and New Zealand First parties to find their democratic voice and prevent this Bill from proceeding past the select committee.
Equally importantly, they are calling on Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, as the Chair of the forthcoming review of Standing Orders, to conduct a first principles review of the select committee processes to find an appropriate balance for democratic participation in the digital era, and an effective way to reinstate some degree of integrity and rigorous review to law-making in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Dame Anne Salmond
Sir Geoffrey Palmer
Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston
Professor Andrew Geddis
Dr Jim Salinger
Dr Geoff Bertram
Dr Bill Rosenberg
Dr Max Harris
Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey
Kelsey on Seymour
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Lz8GMSkEz/
It’s been pretty simple for me since day one. I vote for representative politicians. I don’t vote for appointed officials.
The problem Nick is that not every elected politician is either capable or effective.
I’d take advice of the above-mentioned names before I’d take advice before say Seymour, Van Velden or Simeon Brown for example.
Expertise and experience over grandiose politicians any day.
Then the experts should put themselves up for election.
Why Nick, that is not an argument.
Interesting that Seymour has stated no one has provided any reason for including the treaty in his bill yet he could provide no reason foe excluding it. The irony of this is that it simply proves Seymour is using another avenue to get his original treaty principles bill across the line with Luxon knowing full well this to be the case.
Democracy is being trampled on and undermined by the CoC government, we really need to work extremely hard and get all our whanau out to vote at the next election. And the rich and powerful will stop at nothing to get the CoC back in power this will lead to a very nasty and divisive election.
If the economy improves they will get a second term.
They couldnt be more divisive than Ardern was.
Ardern wasn’t divisive blacky but most certainly this racist CoC is.
How can the economy improve with record unemployment and cheese at $20 a block and butter $10 a block both homegrown.
You must have rocks in your head.
Life can be viewed as a duality when trying to be simple in one’s thinking yes/no, black/white. So I guess we need some trolls like I’m Right who are true to their own materialistic, inhumane style of thinking. If it is unchanging then it becomes a standard – so if one is thinking the same as I’m Right and other right-wingers then you know you are missing some vital point. So they have a purpose on this blog, showing what the amoral position is. Just a thought in favour of the otherwise fragrant trolls.
Pretty sure I’m Right is David Seymour because Seymour always thinks he is right too – even when evidence says otherwise
From RadioNZ
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/566580/analysis-where-next-for-regulatory-standards-bill
by Russell Palmer, Political Reporter
Analysis – With select committee hearings complete, the many submitters who called for the Regulatory Standards Bill to be thrown out – in the compost, as one put it – are destined for disappointment.
Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, National committed to passing it in its agreement with ACT – and by extension, New Zealand First’s agreement commits them to do the same.
NZ First’s Winston Peters publicly voiced a preference for changes, saying the bill was a “work in progress”, although it remained unclear exactly what changes he wanted.
ACT leader David Seymour – the bill’s main proponent – pointedly noted on Monday the commitment was to pass “The” Regulatory Standards Bill – signalling he believed his partners could not demand changes.
While some have theorised – perhaps wishfully – such a disagreement could cause Peters to collapse the government, it is very much not in his interests politically to do so, as it would likely tank his electoral prospects
and
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/566635/reviewers-of-legislation-treaty-clauses-expected-to-report-back-in-months
by Russell Palmer Political Reporter
New Zealand First secured the commitment to a comprehensive review of all legislation (except when it is related to, or substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements) that includes “The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and replace all such references with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty, or repeal the references” in its coalition deal with National.
The creation of the group has been led by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who is also the Treaty Negotiations Minister.
His office confirmed former Waitangi Tribunal member David Cochrane would chair the review group, which also includes Marama Royal, James Christmas and John Walters.
Comments are closed.